From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 27 17:02:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Apr 2002 00:02:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 54839 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2002 00:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Apr 2002 00:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout3.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.24) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2002 00:02:44 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.17]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GV90084K44Y9W@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:02:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:02:30 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <001401c1ee50$62332d40$11b6003e@oemcomputer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa@aol.com> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la pycyn. cusku di'e > Well postulates seem to me to be different from the kind of ad hoc > suppositions that play a role in proofs, though I'm not sure I could explain > what the difference was. There are only a few evidentials, and I think that postulate, supposition, premise, axiom, & hypothesis are all in the same boat as far as that goes. In theory, one of the evidentials should apply to every claim. > In any case, I think that there are at least a > couple of other cases in the corpus where {da'i} and {da'inai} were used to > bracket various kinds of indirect proofs within greater proofs (maybe both > negative proofs in the cases that I can think of), so usage seems to be on > toward established, since I can't think of a case with {ru'a}. I'm just suggesting that 'ru'a' could be added, e.g. .i ru'a da'i broda .i da'inai brode since, after all, you're not actually claiming brode (which 'da'inai' kind of implies), but rather just claiming it as the conclusion given the premise. mu'o mi'e .adam.